Re: fx 1.x issues in JBS

[Kevin Rushforth]

For practical purposes you can treat resolved and closed as the same.

Resolved/fixed versus Closed/fixed does indeed mean what you think, but 
the majority of bugs are never verified, so that difference is really 
only of interest to the testing organization. I always treat them as the 
same in all filters (thus use "resoltuion is EMPTY" to look for open 
bugs, resolution = "Fixed" to looked for fixed bugs, etc., and don't 
query on the status for Resolved or Closed).


-- Kevin


Nir Lisker wrote:
I see, was not aware that there are enough similarities between 1.x 
and later versions. About Resolved issues, I thought that they are 
waiting for a fix confirmation to be Closed.


On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth 
> wrote:


While I suspect many of them can be closed out at this point, it
is not necessarily a given that they are irrelevant (the scene
graph, animation, and graphics engine evolved from 1.x to 2.0). I
agree that it would be good to take a pass over them and close out
the ones that are no longer issues, but I they can't simply be
closed out as a bulk close operation without looking at them.

Also, you say "a lot in resolved" my response would be that I hope
so. An issue that is resolved needs no more action and won't show
up in searches for open bugs. So I guess I'm not sure what you
mean by this.

-- Kevin



Nir Lisker wrote:

Hello,

JBS still has open issues for JavaFX 1 versions and they
appear in searches
even though there's nothing to do about them since that
version is not
supported anymore. Is it appropriate to close them all? There
are also a
lot in Resolved.

- Nir
 

Re: fx 1.x issues in JBS

[Nir Lisker]

I see, was not aware that there are enough similarities between 1.x and
later versions. About Resolved issues, I thought that they are waiting for
a fix confirmation to be Closed.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Kevin Rushforth  wrote:

> While I suspect many of them can be closed out at this point, it is not
> necessarily a given that they are irrelevant (the scene graph, animation,
> and graphics engine evolved from 1.x to 2.0). I agree that it would be good
> to take a pass over them and close out the ones that are no longer issues,
> but I they can't simply be closed out as a bulk close operation without
> looking at them.
>
> Also, you say "a lot in resolved" my response would be that I hope so. An
> issue that is resolved needs no more action and won't show up in searches
> for open bugs. So I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
>
> Nir Lisker wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> JBS still has open issues for JavaFX 1 versions and they appear in
>> searches
>> even though there's nothing to do about them since that version is not
>> supported anymore. Is it appropriate to close them all? There are also a
>> lot in Resolved.
>>
>> - Nir
>>
>>
>

Cross Compilling linux Arm OpenJdk9 javaFx

[Dell Green]

Currently use Arm java8 from Oracle and compile Openjfx for Arm and overlay 
libraries for current product line. Looking to test Java9 on Arm and upgrade 
product line in next generation release.

Cross Compiling openJdk9 for Arm works fine

Trying to compile openJfx from http://hg.openjdk.java.net/openjfx/jfx-dev/rt
Running gradle -PCOMPILE_TARGETS=armv6hf produces swing errors even though  
COMPILE_SWING is false in build.gradle.


home/dell/Documents/IwOpenJdk9/src/openjfx/rt/modules/javafx.swing/src/main/java/module-info.java:36:
 error: file should be on source path, or on patch path for module
module javafx.swing {

/home/dell/Documents/IwOpenJdk9/src/openjfx/rt/modules/javafx.swing/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/embed/swing/SwingNodeHelper.java:26:
 error: file should be on source path, or on patch path for module
package com.sun.javafx.embed.swing;

Problem seems to be with build.gradle line 2154 which has swing tasks being 
disabled if COMPILE_SWING is false. However this code is commented out.

/* should not be built, but needed in JMX
   tasks.all {
   if (!COMPILE_SWING) it.enabled = false
   }
  */

if I uncomment it these errors go away and the build completes.

The resulting armv6hf-modular-sdk folder created by the build is added to jdk 
configure script with '-with-import-modules=' option as per build instructions.
Building the jdk now fails with java.base module FindException, are these 2 
problems related?


Note: Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details.
Error: Module javafx.base not found
java.lang.module.FindException: Module javafx.base not found
at java.base/java.lang.module.Resolver.findFail(Resolver.java:889)
at java.base/java.lang.module.Resolver.resolve(Resolver.java:128)
at java.base/java.lang.module.Configuration.resolve(Configuration.java:357)
at java.base/java.lang.module.Configuration.resolve(Configuration.java:187)
at 
jdk.jlink/jdk.tools.jlink.internal.Jlink$JlinkConfiguration.resolve(Jlink.java:242)
at 
jdk.jlink/jdk.tools.jlink.internal.JlinkTask.createImageProvider(JlinkTask.java:439)
at jdk.jlink/jdk.tools.jlink.internal.JlinkTask.createImage(JlinkTask.java:386)
at jdk.jlink/jdk.tools.jlink.internal.JlinkTask.run(JlinkTask.java:263)
at jdk.jlink/jdk.tools.jlink.internal.Main.run(Main.java:54)
at jdk.jlink/jdk.tools.jlink.internal.Main.main(Main.java:33)
make3: *** 
[/home/dell/Documents/IwOpenJdk9/src/jdk9dev/build/linux-arm-normal-client-release/images/jre/bin/java]
 Error 1
Images.gmk:144: recipe for target 
'/home/dell/Documents/IwOpenJdk9/src/jdk9dev/build/linux-arm-normal-client-release/images/jre/bin/java'
 failed







Dell Green


Software Manager


t: (+44) 203 668 9870


ideaworks.co.uk





[cid:LogoEmailFootter_0829c9d5-b4ed-4548-99f2-5c300468734d.jpg]

206 Great Portland Street
London W1W 5QJ

[cid:bestcompanies2018_abc1b1a4-ffcc-4151-8af8-10f73f8862f6.png]

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email 
in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this email is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solely 
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ideaworks 
Limited. Ideaworks (London) Limited, 206 Great Portland Street, London, W1W 
5QJ. Company Registration No. 3943726

Re: [11] Review Request: JDK-8167096 RFE: change the default INITIAL_DURATION_MS to match the behavior of JSpinner

[Kevin Rushforth]

Hi Prem,

Since this adds new API, this needs a CSR. In general it is best to get 
any proposed API additions reviewed on this alias before spending much 
time on it. In this case, the newly proposed API is a simple property, 
and is the obvious solution, so the API itself looks fine.


Can you please file the CSR? The code review can proceed in parallel 
with the CSR review.


-- Kevin


Prem Balakrishnan wrote:


Hi Kevin, Ajit

 


Request you to review following fix:

 

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167096  

 

Webrev:  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pkbalakr/fx/8167096/webrev00/ 



 


Regards,

Prem

 

Re: fx 1.x issues in JBS

[Kevin Rushforth]

While I suspect many of them can be closed out at this point, it is not 
necessarily a given that they are irrelevant (the scene graph, 
animation, and graphics engine evolved from 1.x to 2.0). I agree that it 
would be good to take a pass over them and close out the ones that are 
no longer issues, but I they can't simply be closed out as a bulk close 
operation without looking at them.


Also, you say "a lot in resolved" my response would be that I hope so. 
An issue that is resolved needs no more action and won't show up in 
searches for open bugs. So I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this.


-- Kevin


Nir Lisker wrote:

Hello,

JBS still has open issues for JavaFX 1 versions and they appear in searches
even though there's nothing to do about them since that version is not
supported anymore. Is it appropriate to close them all? There are also a
lot in Resolved.

- Nir
  

fx 1.x issues in JBS

[Nir Lisker]

Hello,

JBS still has open issues for JavaFX 1 versions and they appear in searches
even though there's nothing to do about them since that version is not
supported anymore. Is it appropriate to close them all? There are also a
lot in Resolved.

- Nir

[11] Review Request: JDK-8167096 RFE: change the default INITIAL_DURATION_MS to match the behavior of JSpinner

[Prem Balakrishnan]

Hi Kevin, Ajit

 

Request you to review following fix:

 

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8167096  

 

Webrev:  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pkbalakr/fx/8167096/webrev00/ 

 

Regards,

Prem